Preferences for "No Grain" DVDs? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

isnt this what was done to the fasst and the furious...took out all film grain?

Not really the same thing. It's possible they did grain REDUCTION using DVNR, but it's a pretty good transfer.

 

[Robert Harris]

There was no differnce between the grain structure of a 35/4 perf film shot on 5248 and an 35/8perf film (VVLA) shot on 5248.

Because of the optical reduction process used for the majority of the VVLA productions to matrices, the resultant positive prints had an extremely low grain feel to them, made even lower by the dyes adhering to the blank via mordant.

A actual Vista show projected as such had the same grain structure as a standard 4 perf show, the difference being in the fact that it was only enlarged by 50% or so, dependant upon the projected AR.

35/4 prints of NxNW had a very fine grain structure, which was made even lower in digitization.

There is no question about what a proper print of Sunset Blvd should look like and the present "restored" prints do not replicate that look, although the new DVD is "pretty."

Grain was never something that was in one's face.

It simply was.

Is.

And should continue to be.

 

[Brent Hutto]

I'm afraid I was thoroughly lost in reading Robert Harris's post. I assume that 35/8 is a desription of VistaVision's use of the negative and 35/4 is the non-VistaVision regular 35mm negative. Is "5248" a film stock? I think I understand how the reduction process would sort of shrink the grain. Not sure what "dyes", "blank" or especially "mordant" means.

So, Robert, how would you compare the DVD presentation of North by Northwest to a projection of a pristine 35mm print? Was that smooth, burnished look (that I see on the DVD) also present in a theatrical presentation?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Dye-transfer works by taking a blank piece of film (not even coated with emulsion) and literally stamping the color onto it from another piece of film containing only one 1/3 of the color information (yellow, magenta, and cyan). Dye-transfer prints have color that last an extremely long time (There are prints of 1930s Technicolor films still with stunning color).

Since the color exists only as dye on the film, rather than exposed emulsion particles, it can have less grain.

The only films which could show off the full potential are the 3-strip Tech. films. You'd have three B&W strips which would each be processed into the "pressing strips" to stamp the color onto the prints. Since you only have shades of grey and black to dye in yellow, magenta, and cyan, not a whole lot of grain. Of course, a film such as North By Northwest, which was shot on Eastmancolor stock, will have a little more visible grain than a true 3-strip would.

 

[Darren Gross]

What does the LA in VVLA stand for? I get the VV (VistaVision) but am stumped on the rest.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

VVLA = VistaVision Large Aperture

 

[Douglas R]

So, Robert, how would you compare the DVD presentation of North by Northwest to a projection of a pristine 35mm print? Was that smooth, burnished look (that I see on the DVD) also present in a theatrical presentation?

I saw North by Northwest on a cinema screen when it was reissued in the UK in the mid 'sixties. It particularly struck me at the time that it was one of the sharpest, brightest and clearest films that I had ever seen.

 

[Robert Harris]

Original dye transfer reduction prints of North by Northwest were gorgeous, with a very finely grained look, which enabled a very sharp image.

This image was made to look even sharper (artificially) because of the high contrast levels of the dye transfer process.

Contrast equates and interrelates with sharpness, meaning that an extrememly sharp, finely resolved image printed in low contrast will not appear to be as sharp as it it.

The dye transfer prints appeared sharper than a direct positive reduction because of the liqued dyes slightly spreading the grain structure, ie. the edges of grain are slightly diffused or softened. This also occurs in the IP/IN process, via which the resultant dupe print will appear to be slightly less "grainy" as the edges of the individual grains are slightly softened in the process.

The most modern Eastman stocks can appear to be virtually grainless, although that is not the case. The grain structure is just incredibly tight.

 

[James L White]

I don't mind a slight amount of grain,(ie A.I Artifcial Inteligence is a very sharp and smooth transfer with a bit of grain) but when they overdo it to the point where we've gotta "fight thorugh" all the grain to see anything then it becomes a problem

What about Digital-Transfers (ie SW EP 2) do you all consider that a "bad(non-filmlike)" transfer because it has NO grain?

 

[Lee_eel]

I thought Attack Of The Clones looked good. but no better than titles like Gladiator and Hollow Man which both contained a little grain.

Wicker Man is another good example of how to maintain a grainy look without introducing compression artefacts. I summise it must be a fine art, however!

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Given that Episode 2 was not shot on film (a few FX shots aside) why should it have grain? The whole point is that the DVD be representative of how the film was originally seen under what the director considers optimal conditions.

Hmmm? VistaVision is still very much with us. Recent productions to have used VistaVision include Men In Black II, The Mummy Returns, and Pearl Harbor.

Only half right. VV was only used to shoot FX shots, not to shoot the actual film.

 

[Joshua_Y]

I actually like grain...gives it a very film like look...but not too much...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

But Mark Zimmer's comments were right on. It isn't about removing grain -- it's about how grain is so difficult to capture properly using a DVD's 480 lines. Something grainy in the theater is going to appear much worse on DVD, because of the lack of resolution, combined with compression artifacts and digital noise -- and little detail. Unfortunately, I think a compromise must always be made, giving the viewer excellent sharp edges, for instance, but lack of real grain.

Agreed that grain presents special challengest to a 720 x 480 resolution image compressed with MPEG2.

However, it can be done, and it can be done well. I'm astonished how some transfers present film-grain that is so fine in appearance that it really *does* look like film projected on a 100" screen.

The 2 biggest problems with grain is that few DVD compressionists provide nearly enough bandwidth to present the image faithfully (artifact free) and often such images are filtered *then* artifically enhanced electronically which adds an unnatural "edginess" to the grain and actually exaggerates it (many early Warner DVDs were like this...Gone with the Wind is a perfect example of a very poorly compressed DVD that looks aweful when blown-up on a projection system).

If DVD producers would stop adding EE to the image, and would use enough bits to compress the image with only the MINIMAL filtering necessary, even a 720 x 480 DVD can present a very faithful "film look" that primarily differs from film by being every so slightly softer in focus/detail. From 1.75 - 2 screen-widths away from a 16x9 screen...the differences become even less obvious and, without direct comparison, the DVD image can present a very believable "projected film" experience.

 

[Iain Lambert]

As an obvious example to throw out there, I think I'd have hit the roof if my lovely looking Minority Report DVD had its grain removed.

Its about the disc looking like the film, really.

 

[Darren Gross]

David,

While it's certainly a combination of factors, as you mentioned, what would you consider optimum bandwith or bitrate for an optimum DVD?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Darren,

I'll admit I'm not the technical guru here...but when you see some DVDs that are rather grainy, yet stand up to the "film like" test on a 100" screen without any video noise, obvious compression artifacting, or added ringing from EE on a 100" screen...you know that it *can* be done.

I know sometimes when I see mosquito noise (from compression) or other video-noise or an over-filtered image on a DVD I'll turn on my bit-rate meter to take a peek. Invariably the bit-rate meter is barely touching 4 or 5 mbps. It's not hard to imagine then why the compression looks poor or why they applied so much filtering so they could lower the bit-rate.

I'd rather have had a 2-disc SE if the "extras" were really all that important in order to maintain a high-quality level of image on a big screen. Heck...even just comparing the theatrical LOTR to the SE you can see how much the image quality is improved from the better compression/higher bit-rate on the extended cut (this is a great example of a "super bit" type comparison from a company other than Columbia Tristar). And on the new version we have both 5.1 DD and 5.1 DTS and *still* it manages to provide better compression.

Once you start to see some "before and after" examples like this where the only real difference in picture quality between the 2 dvd versions (same transfer) is added bitrate/better compression (and what a difference it can make on a big-screen) you really start to second guess all your "normal" DVDs in your collection. How much better would they have looked had they been mastered with a higher bit-rate and less filtering???

Ok...short answer again... I don't know the magic bit-rate (i'm sure it varies), but I *do* know that there are very challenging DVDs out there done right that look very film-like and preserve lots of fine-level detail despite their grain even on a 100" screen. It can be done. Over-filtering and electronic noise like EE are our enemy. Good transfers/optimal-bit-rates/minimal filtering are our friend.